The Money in the Great Ape Debate

Animal welfare groups recently won a major victory when the head of the National Institutes of Health announced the agency would significantly curtail its use of great apes in scientific research.

More than 300 chimpanzees owned by NIH will be sent to sanctuaries to live out their days, although roughly 50 will be kept for possible future research.

But the NIH announcement represents one step in a long fight, some of which has unfolded at the congressional level. Supporters of ending research on great apes sought a legislative remedy in 2011. That year, in both the House and the Senate, lawmakers introduced a bill to prohibit invasive research on great apes, thereby forbidding drug testing or anything that could jeopardize an ape’s health.

Titled the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011, the bill received bipartisan support in both chambers, amassing 176 cosponsors in the House. But neither version made it out of committee and the proposal effectively died at the end of the 112th Congress.

A number of research institutions lobbied on the legislation, including the National Association for Biomedical Research, which has repeatedly argued that much current medical knowledge has resulted from research with animals, and development of future innovations will need to rely upon them too. More than 10 universities also joined in on the lobbying effort. Reports filed by the University of California indicated that its interests lay in “opposition to provisions that restrict research on certain non-human primates.”

The pharmaceutical industry alone spent more than $475 million lobbying on all issues in 2011 and 2012, and it has an extensive stable of lobbyists with long-established relationships on Capitol Hill. Most companies in the industry opposed the bill.

Indeed, animal welfare groups were decidedly overmatched; for these organizations, the battle was never going to be won with money. The Humane Society of the U.S. — which led the lobbying charge for animal welfare groups — spent just $310,000 lobbying in those two years. It was joined by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which spent even less — a total of $268,866.

The same lopsidedness was reflected in campaign contributions — though a few well-placed contributions can’t hurt. In the 2012 cycle, the Humane Society gave $2,000 to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and $2,500 to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top-ranking members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which determines the fate of bills concerning animal welfare. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), ranking member of the similar Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also received $3,000 from the animal rights group.

During that cycle, the Humane Society’s PAC gave a combined $7,500 to four other senators, as well — Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — all of whom were cosponsors of the failed 2011 bill. And former Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), the sponsor of the House legislation, received $1,000 in both 2010 and 2012.

But organizations on the opposite side of the debate have been targeting the same people. The drug company Sanofi sent $5,000 to Upton and $7,500 to Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the committee’s chairman emeritus in the 112th Congress. And the heavy-hitting Pfizer Inc., one of the biggest forces in the pharmaceutical industry, spent more than $4 million in the 2012 cycle and has donated to a majority of members on the two committees.

In total, the pharmaceutical industry sent more than $25 million to congressional candidates in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle.

But NIH’s decision could create a climate in which dollars aren’t decisive. Advocates for the apes are hoping that drug companies may follow the government research institution’s lead even without congressional action — or that legislation could be spurred by NIH’s groundbreaking move.

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.